Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by L.Knoth

  1. Dear Sohail,


    I must say your previous post was rather offensive. To say that we have had terrible representation at nationals is a shame. Although some really pretty speaking teams have been able to make it through occasionally, we still send a good team or two. I would recall last year when myself and Bree qualled and ended up breaking top 60...sure we weren't on stage, but how do we compete with teams that have 7 coaches following them around prepping before every round. Jace and Max got through last year as well, and Jace was definitely a worthy competitor and is currently a great addition to the Missouri State team. Our judging pool isn't that bad........... :)




    • Downvote 1

  2. Congrats to the MO policy teams that advanced

    I think Sarah may have heard wrong in the bathroom...we did lose rounds 7 and 8 both on splits. I don't really agree with either RFD but oh well nothing can really be done now.

    Good luck to Greenwood and Blue Springs you all will do great tomorrow and its good to know there is still some great Missouri representation!!


    Congrats again to all!!!


    btw i had more judges that knew and were wondering where Mike Kearney was then ever before. Just thought I'd let you know you are missed haha

  3. Thank you all for coming, i think it was a great experience for all of us and good to get us back into debate mode seeing as nationals is in only a few days!!


    Hopefully someone will carry this tradition on next year and get the missouri qualifiers back together again.


    Thanks to all competitors, judges, and coaches :)

    • Downvote 1

  4. anyone who wants to come judge and is qualified (done college debate or is a competitive policy coach preferably) is more than welcome to come to Truman High School on Tuesday, we'll put as many judges in each room as possible!!


    Teams who are coming remember that we've asked each team to bring a judge, this is going to help greatly for scheduling!


    Parkway - are you still planning on coming? we can fill your judging spot

  5. this has been sent to most coaches of qualifiers, but Mrs. Adams didn't have some e-mails and asked me to post it so everyone was aware.

    Please forward to your coaches if they haven't recieved this email already!


    Pre-Nationals Round Robin!!


    Congratulations on qualifying your policy team(s) to this year’s national tournament in LAS VEGAS! In order to better prepare for the tournament, as well as provide the best showing possible for the state of Missouri in policy debate, the Truman debate squad is organizing a small round robin and work session to bring teams together before the tournament. Knowing that some squads are leaving before the 15th, we have chosen Tuesday, June 3rd, as the competition day. There will be three-four rounds as follows:


    Round I 9:00

    Round II 11:30

    (Lunch break, maybe walk to CiCi’s or order pizza)

    Round III 2:30

    Round IV or work time to follow


    There is ample time allocated for each round to allow a full competitive debate as well as a constructive oral critique from all judges after the round. We ask that each school brings one qualified judge for EACH team entered, for each round. This will allow us to provide each room with at least 2 judges, and pending some other assistance, we may be able to provide 3 judges for each debate. (As a coach you may sign up to be your own school’s judge or bring someone to serve in the judging capacity.)

    This isn’t a competition for awards, or trophies – in the end this is all about strengthening the skills and strategies of our fellow community debaters so that Missouri may be well represented in Vegas this summer. For this reason, less emphasis will be placed on the decisions of wins and losses and more time will be spent on oral critiques and time working with the judges after each round.

    It is our pleasure to extend this invitation to your qualifiers. We hope that you will join us in preparation for this major tournament. If you could please respond with a confirmation of entries by May 28, it would be greatly appreciated.


    Thank you,


    Ms. Adams (cadams@indep.k12.mo.us)

  6. BUMP


    Just to see if anyone's college plans have changed...i know mine have. I'll now be attending Loyola University in Chicago IL and yes I'll still be debating Parli on a scholarship.

  7. I find it interesting to read a post in the interest of criticizing the lack of progressive debate and receiving better feedback when you kicked one of the most progressive coaches in the state, who I know would have been willing to give you feedback, out of your room first round. This not only harms you, but harms your relationships with schools and coaches within the community and the state that would have been readily available to help you if you are going to nationals (I have no idea if you are or not, but remember slightly that you may have qualified).


    Progressive debate also suffers when individuals sign off of AIM when asked for intel (while all the time ignoring facebook messages) instead of merely saying, "I don't want to disclose." It closes down communication within the community and harms you when you might need intel or files in outs.


    This may seem petty, but it just strikes me as strange.


    While i don't want to start any arguments on this thread I will say however that our coach doesn't allow us to have people from non-competing schools inside our room during competition. She frowns upon this "scouting" and while I probably wouldn't have had a problem with it, she would have. Also we were debating Smith-Cotton with two lay judges and no development on positions so the critique post round as per our oratorical performances probably would've been unsubstantial. I don't understand why this would hurt our relationships with other schools, I think that takes it a little too far to say that I will be looked down upon by a community of debaters due to appeasing my coaches round watching policies. This should've come as no problem to you seeing as we didn't even break so there was no need for you to have a flow of our 1AC provided by your coach. I know my coach wasn't watching other rounds and flowing their cases...but thats just me.


    As per facebook, you knew exactly what we were running and it showed in your message to me. I didn't feel you needed any additional information. Everyone in the state knows we've run the same aff all year long.

    • Upvote 1

  8. Just to give y'all a different perspective, here's some of the coaches' thinking that has led to these rules in the first place (stuff like this always comes up at the biannual rules meetings coaches are required to attend)...This cuts both ways, of course. Who had the better tournament: a 5-3 team which lost 0-2 against another 5-1 in the 4th round, or a team that was 3-3 and beat another 3-3 in the 4th round? Power-matching will only magnify the importance of tie-breakers that we all agree are less than ideal. Power-matching does not solve inequities in schedule quality, it simply replaces those inequities with other, different ones which are equally problematic...If things are still operating the way they did when I was there, 32 teams participate at state. Advancing one quarter of those teams increases the odds that the teams clearing are the best of the best; advancing anywhere from one-third to one-half of the field decreases those odds, and to some extent moots the importance of the prelims...


    As for the two-judge thing: Three-judge panels in prelims would be ideal, but the size of the pool won't allow it. We went away from one-judge prelims (at District AND State) to cut down on the "random bullet" problem. I don't disagree that going 5-3 looks like a good result, but if there were only single-judge rounds that 5-3 team could actually be anywhere from 4-0 good to 1-3 not-so-much. In general, coaches don't feel like 5-3 is as reliable an indicator of quality as 6-2, 7-1, or 8-0 are, and I agree with them...This seems to contradict your earlier interest in power-matching. Which do you prefer?This is a VERY old and contentious issue. My own view is that tie-break order should be as follows:

    1. Strength-of-schedule (I've defended that priority many times on this website)
    2. Head-to-head competition (if the two teams met)
    3. Speaker ranks
    4. Speaker points
    5. Coin flip

    In my own opinion, speaker ranks and speaker points are both very suspect as tie-breakers, but if they must be used speaker ranks are slightly less subject to error than are speaker points...


    This year there were only 21 teams at state for clarification.

    And as for the judging pool...MAKE IT BIGGER.

    There is a reason that coaches have discussed and argued that we should move the state tournament to an area such as KC or Springfield, both these areas have a surplus of good college debaters that would be more than willing to judge a few state rounds - where they're almost guaranteed some decent rounds - while getting paid. MU doesn't have a debate program any more so almost all of our "paid judges" were law students, or former debaters that debated one maybe two years in high school. The recruitment for paid judges consisted of a small chain of emails to a few students - not much publication of the event to attract former debaters. Although i agree that good debaters should be those who can adapt to a flow or a lay it makes rounds a lot more muddled and difficult to adapt to when you have a Coach from a school like Parkview who knows fully what they're doing, and a law student who has NO clue what you're doing. I just read ballots today and it seemed as if the judges weren't even in the same room. You could win a lay judge who says you speak pretty while losing a flow judge due to a half assed DA debate. Or you could win a flow judge with a nuclear war impact scenerio clearly won on a DA while losing the law student who writes "you shouldn't be aggressive."

    Missouri needs to join the rest of the nation in producing good debaters and good competition by allowing for that with experienced critics who can help formulate those skilled debates.

  9. Just throwing this out there...not trying to cause any more discontent than is already current on this thread. There are many teams that should be represented in later out rounds as was stated above, but tournaments like this truly are a crap shoot. In our rounds we had 1 school judge and 1 paid judge. Only one of our paid judges was a former debater (the round against max and jace) but even then I'm not sure how familiar she is with modern debates i.e. she didn't seem too pleased whenever I asked about k's because I wanted to run bioptx. The other paid judges were maybe students at the law school? i'm not sure, but I did manage to get a young woman who rolled her eyes when i said hundreds of thousands of people were dying from genocide in darfur...


    The problem with the school judges is as follows; Coaches are forced to judge events in which they have NO qualifiers. This means that the schools like liberty, truman, and blue springs who have VERY qualified coaches will NOT be the ones in the back of the room. This theory of judging assignments is to avoid conflicts of coaches bias but lets get real - as policy debaters we should have individuals who UNDERSTAND what we're saying and can help us, especially as we prepare for nationals. Having a coach from a school that HATES policy, or doesn't even do debate does nothing to help the Missouri Policy debate program what so ever. Fortunately we had the pleasure of having Wedgeworth as a judge because parkview didn't qualify any teams but its coaches like HER (with 2 nat'l qualifying policy teams) that should be judging us. Reading her ballot will improve our skills more than a ballot that says "the 2AR yelled and wouldn't let the other team answer in c-x you lose". Our coaches are all grown individuals who know how to put their bias aside, its unfair to punish the competitors by not allowing those coaches to judge us.


    -and to the small town argument, you must prove yourself to create a legacy like the bigger towns have created. In KC there is a smaller school named Savannah. Most people don't hear about them, but David Kozminski has made a name for their school. He has over 2000 points and has qualified to nationals in multiple events, competing in almost every debate and drama event. Success will get you recognized, but it must be consistent and garner some legitimacy. Seeing the upsets and lack of representation by certain talented debaters it is understandable that there is some warranted merit to the comments that have been made previously.


    congratulations to all teams but KSATZ YOU BETTER WIN THIS



  10. I was indeed a member of this finals round, and I heard the comments made by one of the judges after the round.

    I am a firm believer that debate should be fun as well as educational, thus drew abby myself and bree had decided that for the last round we would ever be competing in in our district, we would try and have some fun.

    There were several issues that culminated to one judge opting out of making a decision.

    The neg strat was indeed a hypothetical conditional counterplan to give cigarettes to all those infected with HIV/AIDS in africa with several net bens..famine, afrocentrism, and malthus were a few. We had fun in the round and actually debated we didn't just jack around. All the arguments had clash and even theory placed on them and i thought it was a great way to end my career here in kansas city. Dress code also became a small issue, seeing as the BSS debaters wore their shirts repping out garrett clark, my partner and I were going to as well however our coach wouldn't let us, so we left them on our desks.

    I think this was taken to far, but i respect the coaches and judges for their decisions.


    Thanks to drew and abby for a fun round :)

  11. The idea has been tossed around by several squads,

    and there is a possibility that we would ask all participating members of this years state qualifying tournament to wear purple or yellow t-shirts to debate in,

    we still have to talk to coaches and see if this would even be an okay possibility,

    but what do you all think?

    • Upvote 1

  12. The visitation will be sunday night from 6-9, as a community anyone who knew him, it would be greatly appreciated to see everyone there.


    He had a great circle of friends and a great debate circuit to support him.

    Tournaments will never EVER be the same without him.


    We love you G.A.C.

  13. outrounds looked something like this...




    Truman A def. Lee's summit A (3-0)

    Kickapoo A def. Parkview A (2-1?)

    SMW A def. i think Nixa B??

    Nixa A def. ??



    SMW A def. Truman A (2-1)

    Nixa A def. Kickapoo A (??)



    Nixa A def SMW A


    Congrats to everyone that broke at this tournament. It was good to see most the springfield kids again (brynden and joel where were you!?!?). Congrats to Nixa A for winning. And thanks to melanie and leigha for a good sem's round...stock issues is always the best debate haha darned judges.

  • Create New...